-
by Admin
15 December 2025 3:42 AM
“Pre-arrest Bail Cannot Be a Shield in Cases of Psychological Manipulation Leading to Suicide” – Kerala High Court dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed by an Intelligence Bureau officer accused of abetting the suicide of a 24-year-old woman. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of instigation, including psychological domination, financial exploitation, and coercion to terminate a pregnancy, and ruled that pre-arrest bail would seriously hamper custodial interrogation.
“This is not a mere case of failed relationship – the petitioner allegedly urged the deceased to fix the date of her death,” observed the Court, while holding that the allegations, if established, could fall squarely under Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The deceased, Ms. Megha, was found dead on 24 March 2025 near Chakka Railway Bridge in Thiruvananthapuram, triggering the registration of Crime No. 396/2025 at Pettah Police Station. She was identified as a colleague of the petitioner, Sukanth Suresh P., who worked with the Intelligence Bureau at Nedumbassery, while the deceased was posted at Thiruvananthapuram.
Initial investigation under Section 194 BNSS escalated to serious charges under Sections 108, 316(3), 318(4), and 69 of the BNS based on material evidence, including digital records, witness statements, and financial transactions. The petitioner was arrayed as the primary accused, with his uncle named as the second accused.
The central legal question was whether the allegations and materials collected by the prosecution justified denial of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court held that custodial interrogation was imperative and pre-arrest bail would undermine the integrity of the ongoing probe.
Justice Thomas noted: “To what extent the petitioner had prompted the deceased to commit suicide or did something which resulted in her taking her life are all matters which need to be probed... The above materials collected so far could be the tip of the iceberg.” [Para 11]
The Court pointed to irrefutable circumstances revealed in the investigation:
“Petitioner wielded considerable power over the deceased and she was transferring her entire salary every month from October 2024 onwards.”
“The deceased became pregnant through the petitioner, which was later medically terminated.”
“WhatsApp chat retrieved from a deleted account reveals that the petitioner had been harassing the deceased mentally... and repeatedly prompting her to die and even goading her to fix the date of her death.” [Paras 10–11]
Mens Rea and ‘Instigation’ under BNS
The Court analyzed the meaning of ‘instigation’ as required under Section 45(a) of BNS, holding:
“The essence of the offence of abetment of suicide lies in, not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.” [Para 12]
The Court further elaborated: “When the petitioner, to whom the deceased was madly in love... urged, repeatedly, to end her life to enable him to marry another person, it cannot be concluded, at this early stage, that such a conduct was not an ‘instigation’ as per Section 45 of BNS.” [Para 15]
Citing Radhika Kapahtia v. State of Kerala, Sanju v. State of M.P., and Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat, the Court reaffirmed that the threshold of “instigation” does not require direct instruction to die, but may include continuous psychological abuse and coercion.
Necessity of Custodial Interrogation
Rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court stressed the significance of custodial interrogation in emotional and psychologically complex offences like suicide abetment.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598], the Court observed:
“Success in interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prior bail order during the time he is interrogated.”
It added: “An order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner may impede and harm the investigation by restricting the prospects of unearthing relevant materials.” [Para 17]
The Court also relied on State (CBI) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, to reinforce that interrogation of a suspect protected by bail would be “a mere ritual.”
In a stern rebuke to misuse of emotional influence and betrayal of trust in intimate relationships, the Kerala High Court concluded:
“Petitioner was in a position of control or dominance over the deceased and was repeatedly prompting her to take her life... such conduct amounts to instigation.” [Para 14]
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed, with the liberty to renew the application after custodial interrogation, marking the Court’s intent to ensure a full, unhampered investigation into what it termed a complex and grave emotional crime.
Date of Decision: 26 May 2025
